Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

I have to chime in! If in fact being gay was a natural thing, then gays would have gone the way of other extinct species, because the anachronistic
gene that carried that deviant trait would have died out long ago.

Gays have survived solely by copulating with the opposite sex and those genetics have been passed on through the offspring between a man and a
woman.

That is why your theory is wrong, and also why gays should be allowed to marry. If they all marry other members carrying this deviant gene, they will
greatly reduce the chances of it being passed on to unsuspecting children.

Now that we passed gay marriage (and I am for it) all we have to do is to have them neutered so the bad genetics cannot be perpetuated in future
generations of heterosexual humans.

I am a farmer, so that is my solution, we do it in cattle, when we discover an undesirable trait, we remove the animal from the breeding herd, the
same should apply here. John

What about the people who have a hard time becoming pregnant due to fertility issues and therefore need external assistance to reproduce? How about we
neuter people who have serious diseases in their family tree? If there is a family history of mental illnesses in one's family tree, are those people
suddenly unworthy of having children because of a possibility of passing on those mental illnesses? Would you consider it ethical to neuter people
based on having "bad genes" as far as physical attraction goes? Should those people be not allowed to reproduce because of their "deviant" or
otherwise "defective" genes?

I do not think there is one specific gene that contributes to sexual orientation. Plus, what happens during meiosis is only part of how a child turns
out genetically speaking. The problem with your argument too is that not all gay people are going to marry other gay people. As long as people have a
bigoted attitude towards homosexuality, some people will "remain in the closet" their whole lives and choose a heterosexual lifestyle, despite being
secretly homosexual.

Every disease or every mutation otherwise starts somewhere in a family tree and it can happen to anyone, regardless of how hard you try to "breed
out" something or prevent it from occurring. Also, when it comes to trying to prevent certain mental illnesses anybody can develop them. Hell, the
world's kindest parents could have a child who torture and kill animals for fun, whereas the cruelest parents in the world could end up with an angel
of a child. Point is, if nature wants there to be a mutation or something of the sort, it will provide it whether or not we like it.

No I am not discussing dominant or recessive traits or the basics of Mendelian genetics. What I'm discussing the basics of behavior genetics. Now I'm
hardly arguing that homosexuality is 100% determined by genetics. Knowing how genetics influence behavior that would be a ridiculous statement to
make. However it is just as ridiculous to claim that genetics plays no role in homosexuality. Somewhere between 5-10% of the world's population is
thought to be homosexual. Familial studies show that if one identical twin is gay then in about 50% of cases the other twin is also gay. If genetics
did not play a factor one would expect this number to match the global average of 5-10%. Following from these studies we can look at the extended
family. These studies show that homosexuality is more prevalent on the mother's side (at least with homosexual males) than the father's side. This
would indicate that the genetic markers for homosexuality are carried on the X chromosome. In fact scientists have identified the XQ28 region of the X
chromosome as being a likely location for some of the genes influence sexual behavior.

We can also look at other commonalities among homosexuals that could only be explained by a genetic influence. For example the amygdala in homosexual
males bears more similarities to that of a heterosexual female than a heterosexual male. And vice versa. The same goes for the INAH3 region of the
brain. Homosexuals also tend to show higher rates of left handedness than global population as a whole. There are numerous physical commonalities in
homosexuals that clearly indicate genetics are playing a role.

Once again though nowhere am I saying that only genetics matter. Anyone who has spent time researching behavior genetics will tell you that it is very
rare to see a heritability coefficient anywhere near 1.00. Human behavior is very much determined by both nature and nurture. If one has more genes
that predispose them to a behavior then they will require a smaller environmental stimuli for those behaviors to manifest. It is very possible for
someone to have some of the genes for homosexuality (or even a lot of them for that matter) but never manifest the behavior because they never receive
the proper environmental stimuli. That is how the genes for homosexuality have been consistently passed on throughout human history.

Human sexuality is much more complex than an all or nothing proposition. It is based on numerous genes and countless environmental factors. It exists
on a spectrum with a lot of gray area between the two extremes.

I agree with you for the most part. I tend to think it's more genetic than anything else. I also believe that certain experiences and environmental
factors can confirm one's sexual orientation but not necessarily make or break one's sexual preferences.

Originally posted by Faust100f
I have to chime in! If in fact being gay was a natural thing, then gays would have gone the way of other extinct species, because the anachronistic
gene that carried that deviant trait would have died out long ago.

Gays have survived solely by copulating with the opposite sex and those genetics have been passed on through the offspring between a man and a
woman.

That is why your theory is wrong, and also why gays should be allowed to marry. If they all marry other members carrying this deviant gene, they will
greatly reduce the chances of it being passed on to unsuspecting children.

Now that we passed gay marriage (and I am for it) all we have to do is to have them neutered so the bad genetics cannot be perpetuated in future
generations of heterosexual humans.

I am a farmer, so that is my solution, we do it in cattle, when we discover an undesirable trait, we remove the animal from the breeding herd, the
same should apply here. John

I can't tell if you're kidding. I hope you are, but I'm thinking not, which means you know nothing since there is no gay gene that anyone has ever
identified and no amount of breeding via your ridiculous scenario is ever going to work since gays come FROM heterosexuals. Or you're kidding, and I
didn't find it funny - take your pick.

Oh give me a break with the fairy tales. If we still went by what the bible says, then alot of people would be put to death over stupid things. If, by
chance that everything in the bible is real, then i would gladly go to hell, rather than worship a primitive, backward, un caring, aragont god. You
think its just a coinsidence that God sounds like a primitive human? No, its bcause primitive humans wrote the bible.

Ever hear of Sodom and Gomorrah? A whole city put to death over these choices. Say what you want about YOUR creator but everybody gets a CHOICE.

I have challenged everything in the Bible and found that he didn't say not to do something JUST BECAUS,E he said not to do them because he knew the
harm in doing them.

I do believe religion has been corrupted as he knew also that it would be, but if your paying attention at all to yourself and your own choices you
will see they don't just effect you.

Then why, why oh why if you believe this precious bible of yours do you then CUT YOUR HAIR which is explicitly forbidden, as is wearing garments made
of more than one fabric, as is planting a field with more than one crop. God also says that a woman who has committed adultery should be stoned to
death. Why aren't you championing THESE causes too? Do you cut your hair? If so - WHY???? What kind of clothes do you wear - are they made of more
than one garment? If so WHY - your bible says not to! So why - none of you have ever been able to answer that question no matter how many times I pose
it. And I can see why - because the answer is "That doesn't matter, only homosexuality matters, so I'm hypocritical and am cherry picking what I
want to follow from the bible," which only means you have absolutely no right to use it in your weak arguments.

Not everyone is destine to heaven; many or MOST will go to hell. Twisting and turning the scriptures to misdirect your ideas is often done and you
have done a good job of that. It is a shame so many people can quote a bible sentence or two and then have no idea what they speak of.

I advise you to research your morals to find out who you are and to whom you belong ......heaven or hell? it is your choice, free will, your
decision,......your fate.

As per usual - you can't answer my question. And you're saying I'm the one twisting bible quotes and picking and saying what I want from them. But
like most bible thumpers before you, no one can answer my specific question which just simply means that you are NOT following all the rules in your
bible and that's that.

It's also not included in the DSM because it doesn't fit with the other paraphilias at all. The DSM IV-TR defines a paraphilia as:

...recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or
humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months

Homosexuals are human, consenting adults that don't require suffering or humiliation to become aroused. It simply does not meet the qualifications to
be a paraphilia.

For someone who works in science your knowledge of behavioral genetics is lacking. With rare exceptions like Huntington's chorea genetics is never an
all or nothing thing. Behavior is the confluence of genetics and environment. The more genetically predisposed one is to a behavior the less
environmental stimuli is required for the behavior to emerge. So it's possible for a person to have some of the genes for homosexuality but never
have the behavior emerge. Thus they pass on the genes to the next generation. Plus there are many of cases of people who have hid their homosexuality
until after they had a family. I have to say it's quote ridiculous to think that something as complex as sexuality would be found on a single gene.
As far as I know we have not found all of the genes that contribute to any complex behavior. So why are you surprised we haven't found the genes that
contribute to homosexuality?

Then we come to your claims regarding the paraphilias. The difference between homosexuals and rapists or sadists is that rapists and sadists are
generally seeking power over their victim. These paraphilias are natural because they are products of the brain. However, what makes them disorders is
the fact that they are behaviors that cause suffering in others. There is no victim in homosexuality. There is very much a victim in rape. No one may
choose to be a pedophile but at the same time most pedophiles will recognize what they're doing is wrong.

Please dont insult my intelligence, you have no idea what you are talking about and sound very ignorant. What you were attempting to explain is known
as recessive traits, I'm not doing to give you a class on genetics, its not something you can just copy and paste from wiki. You also didnt fully
read or understand the sentence addressing social construct in relation to passing on genetics. Sexual genetics effect some usual markers, mainly
hormones;look, there would be alot to explain has far as genetic arguments, but that argument would be very one-sided so there is no point.

I figured someone would respond and compare the morality of different sexual behaviors in an attempt to invalidate my argument. Again, if you
finished reading the sentence that aspect was addressed. Morality is not the issue, the behaviors are sexual in nature, and abnormal. That is their
relationship. If your are going to justify one behavior has being natural and something you are born with, logically other sexual behaviors that are
abnormal would then have to wonder if they are of the same origin. Why cant one argue their abnormal sexual behaviors are inherent in their DNA, and
thus a result of being born? Reasoning that because one is morally superior to the other and using said reasoning to justify it being biological over
the other is non-sense and illogical.

"Copy and paste" from Wiki? Please! There is no evidence ANY of your BS is true about homosexuality and genetics. You are hilarious!

Today, 1/3 of American children are being raised without a father in the household. This is a result of the Welfare State--and is as intended. Also,
a result of having no father in the house means a substantial number of boys have no role model for how a man should behave--and they begin to act
like women, and more often become homosexuals.

Currently, the white population is reproducing at less than replacement rate.

Homosexuality will mean a more rapid end to families, the nation, and even the species. For that reason alone it is undesirable. The other reasons
it should not be encouraged---shame, disgust, self-loathing, disease--should be apparent to anyone who is aware.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Also, a result of having no father in the house means a substantial number of boys have no role model for how a man should behave--and they begin to
act like women, and more often become homosexuals.

You sound convinced.

Please illuminate ATS by showing some compelling evidence connecting homosexuality to single mothers.

Currently, the white population is reproducing at less than replacement rate.

Relevance?

Homosexuality will mean a more rapid end to families, the nation, and even the species.

In my thread on homosexuality and population I grabbed the most gay friendly countries in the World and showed the populations were not dwindling but
they were increasing. I am talking birth rates.

You must be working on the basis homosexuality is contagious. It's not.

Originally posted by JohnBlack
I find that anything and I mean ANYTHING that has to be FORCED on everyone constantly and persistently must not be natural thing.

Why does it need to be FORCED upon everyone else? Why do I have to care about homosexuals? Or Jews or Muslims or single mothers?

Basically, a word to the wise. IF your governments gets involved then it is not in the populations interests. Think about that.

So according to your logic when African Americans were "FORCING" the right to equality that was a bad thing

And you don't have to care
about homosexuals or any of those things you listed that's all totally irrelevant. And in response to your "advice" is governments get involved
when the population have shown interest in a topic that is causing civil unrest.

Today, 1/3 of American children are being raised without a father in the household. This is a result of the Welfare State--and is as intended. Also,
a result of having no father in the house means a substantial number of boys have no role model for how a man should behave--and they begin to act
like women, and more often become homosexuals.

Currently, the white population is reproducing at less than replacement rate.

Homosexuality will mean a more rapid end to families, the nation, and even the species. For that reason alone it is undesirable. The other reasons
it should not be encouraged---shame, disgust, self-loathing, disease--should be apparent to anyone who is aware.

LOL
now this post is something else! What a complete load of rubbish!
There is no evidence that gays are a danger to our population, none
at all.

Now, governments starting pointless wars. Thats a danger to our population,
and us as a race.

In part to test the Bieber conclusions, Apperson and McAdoo compared 23 non-patient homosexuals and 22 members of the US army. Their
conclusion:

The results of this study strongly support the theoretical formations of Bieber et al., in considering homosexuality as primarily related to
specific experiential factors. The importance of the relationship -- or lack of it --with the father is again emphasized with the homosexual
S[ubject]s showing marked difference from the controls in perceiving the father more as critical, impatient, and rejecting, and less as the
socializing agent. (Apperson, 1968)

Snortum, et al., conducted tests on 46 males being evaluated for separation from the military because of homosexual incidents and 89 controls. Their
conclusion: "It appears that the family dynamics for homosexual patients described by Bieber, et al. were confirmed in toto." (Snortum, 1969)

Thompson, et al.,(1973) queried 127 white homosexual males and 123 matched heterosexual controls and found that the homosexuals were more likely to
report that they spent very little time with their fathers. The authors concluded that weak and/or hostile fathers played a prominent role in the
etiology of homosexuality.

A study by Stephan, et al., compared 88 activist male homosexuals with 105 male heterosexuals and found that: "On no variable did the homosexuals
evaluate their fathers favorably." Stephan concluded:

The majority of the homosexuals did not appear to have positive male models to identify with as children, and as a consequences they may have
identified with females. This process was probably facilitated by the fact that normative masculine role behavior was not encouraged strongly by
either parent. (Stephan, 1973)

In a 1979 article Irving and Toby Bieber reported that in their evaluations of over 1,000 male homosexuals, they did not find one "whose father openly
loved and respected him." (Bieber, 1979)

Other studies reported similar findings. Sherman (1985) found that homosexual sons "perceived their relationship with their fathers as distant,
negative, and conflicted." Saghir and Robins conducted extensive interviews with 86 homosexual men and 35 single heterosexual controls, the results of
which they published in a book length report Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (1973).Men with a history of psychiatric
problems or incarceration were eliminated from the sample. According to their report:

In over one-half of the homosexuals the parental home during their childhood is marked by intense discord and fighting. The role of the father at
home seems to be conspicuous by its absence. In a surprising 84% of the homosexuals, the father is described as indifferent and uninvolved at home,
particularly with the homosexual son, and in a similar proportion the homosexuals describe their childhood relationship with their fathers as
unsatisfactory. (Saghir, p.152)

Only 13% of the homosexuals (vs 66% of the controls) reported identifying with their fathers in childhood and only 18% of the homosexual men felt that
their overall relationship with their fathers in childhood was a satisfactory one in contrast to 82% of the heterosexuals. (Saghir, pp.144, 145) The
personal comments by the homosexual respondents confirmed the negative father/son relationship:

Why are none of the studies cited from after 1985? Physiological psychology, behavioral genetics and genetics in general are all fields that have
exploded starting in the 90s. For that matter the number of studies focused on homosexuality have seen a massive increase since the 80s. So why
didn't your link source any articles that incorporate these modern developments?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.